profiles_calendar

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get calendar events', implying a read operation, but does not clarify details like whether the events are historical or future, the date range, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. The scope of 'calendar events' is vaguely defined, and there is no mention of what happens if no events exist or if the ticker is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, succinct sentence with no filler words. It immediately conveys the action and target. The structure is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the object 'calendar events', making it easy to scan. Every word contributes meaning, so it earns a top score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not specify whether the events are upcoming or historical, the typical date range, or the format of the returned data. Given the large number of sibling tools with similar names, the lack of differentiation and return-value details leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description for 'ticker' is complete (100% coverage), providing a straightforward definition ('Stock ticker'). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states — it simply reuses the term 'ticker'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat the schema but could have added context like accepted formats (e.g., uppercase, exchange suffix), but this is not essential.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves calendar events (earnings, dividends) for a given ticker, using a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource. It is unambiguous about the subject matter, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like earnings_history or earnings_report. The mention of 'earnings, dividends' adds specificity that helps set it apart from generic calendar tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Many sibling tools exist (e.g., earnings_history, earnings_report, profiles_info) that could serve similar purposes. There is no mention of conditions like 'use this for upcoming events' or 'use this instead of X when Y'. An agent has no context on when this tool is the preferred choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.